The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: A new hypothesis  (Read 2237 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
A new hypothesis
« on: 17/04/2016 13:08:04 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy can then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.


 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #1 on: 17/04/2016 14:37:36 »
The relativistic increase of all the component energies of the composite proton should be in direct proportion to each other. The binding energy can increase via any separation of the constituent quarks. Quark separation can happen due to an increase in their kinetic energies. This leaves the energy acquired by the quarks via the Higgs mechanism. The velocity of the particle through the Higgs field appears to resolve this. As the Higgs is a relativistic field it has no preferred direction or frame of reference. This makes it ideal to be a relativistic fixed background.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #2 on: 17/04/2016 14:59:15 »
As the kinetic energy of a quark increases we have an oscillation that is increasing in frequency due to the action of the gluons. This compares well to the de Broglie relationship between momentum and wavelength. The greater the magnitude of velocity the shorter the wavelength of this oscillation. The energy given to the quarks via the Higgs mechanism is then key to all these interactions. Since the Higgs field has no preferred direction then it can produce a field which IS directional. That is, the gravitational field.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #3 on: 17/04/2016 18:18:32 »
The graph below assumes a linear relationship between mass and charge. The form of this function is likely non-linear unlike the actual graph. For any functional relationship we can have a form y = f(x) where we could analyse the function as mx + C. Here the constant C can be varied to adjust the magnitude of the energy on the y axis without disturbing the relationship between charge and mass. This value of C can then be substituted with the gamma function.

 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #4 on: 17/04/2016 18:21:08 »
This then gives us the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh + gamma(x). Where x is as yet undetermined.
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #5 on: 17/04/2016 20:02:04 »
Do protons emit and absorb photons ? Yes. A charged particle that is accelerated by gravity does not emit an em wave/photon. The only other way to accelerate a charged particle is to apply a mechanical or electro-magnetic force to it over some distance. And a mechanical force is nothing but an em force. Thus, the observational evidence amounts to: a charged particle does not emit an electro-magnetic wave or photon except when it receives electro-magnetic energy.  So this leads to a reformulation of the question: does the charged particle emit a photon because it accelerates? Or does it emit a photon in response to receiving a photon, which incidentally causes it to accelerate?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #6 on: 17/04/2016 22:07:46 »
The proposed hypothesis has nothing to say about interactions between protons and photons. Can you please explain why you believe this to be relevant.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #7 on: 18/04/2016 09:13:13 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy can then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.

I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''


Pe = Be

Be=Pe


But I like your idea Jeff it seem's to have meaning.


What are you stating is the binding energy?


I have neg.


Pe=Be=+=-?


Physics seem's quite easy if we consider neg is attracted to neg, not maybe the sort of neg we are accustomed too, but a gravitational neg. Because things that expand contract when they return to more neg .




added -



L0=+q=-q=T0






« Last Edit: 18/04/2016 15:57:43 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #8 on: 18/04/2016 19:41:55 »
Another point in the function comes from the equation for the neutron.

Ne = Be + 2Dk + Uk + 2Dh +Uh

For stable matter the only particle not accounted for is the electron. In the case of the weak force we also need to account for the W+, W- and Z bosons and how they acquire mass via the Higgs mechanism.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #9 on: 18/04/2016 19:45:47 »
Let the proton energy be Pe. The formula for total energy vcan then be represented by the equation Pe = Be + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh. Where Be is binding energy Uk and Dk are the up and down quark kinetic energies and Uh and Dh are the up and down quark energies acquired via the Higgs mechanism.

I don't think you need the extra after ''Be''


Pe = Be

Be=Pe


Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #10 on: 18/04/2016 20:59:38 »
If an increase in quark kinetic energy goes hand in hand with an increase in relativistic mass then how does this square with time dilation? Well this can be thought of in terms of orbits. Consider a comet approaching close to a celestial body like a star or planet. It can only interact with the object by maintaining an orbit if its velocity is less than the escape velocity. If the velocity exceeds this then it can only be captured by a body large enough to have an escape velocity in excess of the comets velocity. Therefore the object must have a larger mass in order for interaction to occur. While not a perfect analogy it gives the general idea.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3157
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #11 on: 18/04/2016 21:08:38 »

Well then you don't understand the basis for the hypothesis.

Potential energy and binding energy I understand, that is the basis for your theory once you put Pe=Be.


This bit why ? + 2Uk + Dk + 2Uh + Dh + gamma(x). Where x is as yet undetermined

Do we observe this up and down movement?

And kE is not a real thing so that sort of kills that.


added-

Be+Pe = >4/3 pi r   

Be-Pe=<4/3 pi r








« Last Edit: 19/04/2016 09:04:37 by Thebox »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #12 on: 20/04/2016 15:24:32 »
The Higgs field bestows what we term rest mass on elementary particles. This implies that this field relates directly to inertia. The fact that upon acquiring mass particles gain a gravitational field show this quite well. While we may find it difficult to overcome the inertia of very large objects, the gravitational field has no such trouble. Does the gravitational field modify the action of the Higgs field?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #13 on: 20/04/2016 18:12:55 »
When thinking of transformations between frames and relative velocities it is useful to use the fixed stars as a 'background'. As referenced in "The theory of Relativity" by C Moller p49. (This applies to the twins paradox). The fact that the fixed stars can be used as such a background tells us that intuitively there must be such a concept. At the quantum level this may well be a field like the Higgs field. This does not imply that the Higgs field is 'stationary' as such a concept has no global meaning in relativity. If motion through the field has anything to do with relativistic mass increase then it has to be regarded as simply fixed. Any effect that gravitation has on this field must alter the vacuum expectation value to some degree. Since mass is a product of symmetry breaking then any force that acts to restore symmetry may ease the path of matter through the field. This is a very debatable point without any experimental data to confirm it and will likely be dismissed. It is not at all certain if it can even be confirmed experimentally.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #14 on: 23/04/2016 14:26:14 »
If we take the speed of the graviton as constant, without assigning a particular speed such as c, we can then describe the motions of the particle away from a source. The expanding balloon analogy can be used. Since the direction of motion is away from the point source this gives an ever expanding sequence of spherical shells. The drop in particle density on the surfaces of successively larger shells will then follow an inverse square distribution. As a side note this says something interesting about an expanding universe.

If an interaction between the graviton and the Higgs field were to be considered a mechanism for the action of gravity then the equivalence between inertial and gravitational mass becomes a function of displacement from the origin of the field.

I am leaving the above statement about mass equivalence in. However this is wrong since the source does not change, simply the field distribution away from the source.
« Last Edit: 23/04/2016 14:30:42 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline McQueen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 545
  • Thanked: 6 times
    • View Profile
    • http://www.geocities.com/natureoflight/pgindex
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #15 on: 23/04/2016 14:31:28 »
I think The Box is the only one who makes any sense in this thread !
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #16 on: 23/04/2016 14:40:56 »
But still nothing to say on spin numbers!
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #17 on: 23/04/2016 14:53:01 »
HI tell you what your best option is. Read the following.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model_(mathematical_formulation)
« Last Edit: 23/04/2016 15:07:03 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #18 on: 23/04/2016 15:18:18 »
Take note of the 'mexican hat' potential of the Higgs field. This describes the symmetry breaking giving rise to the mass term. It is also a pretty picture for you to look at. Anothe term of note is Lagrangian density. Go look it up you might learn something. When you have been through the pain of reading up on gauge theory then come back and talk to me. I would recommend 'A Course in Group Theory' by John F Humphreys.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #19 on: 23/04/2016 22:19:32 »
Another interesting article for those interested.

https://plus.maths.org/content/secret-symmetry-and-higgs-boson-part-i
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #20 on: 24/04/2016 18:10:46 »
The proton and neutron energy equations can be stated thus.

77396b572a1e3e96359113a2b5018b2a.gif

2943f8641a346b6eea70ae8187c263c7.gif

Here k = kinetic energy and h = Higgs energy.

If during an infinitesimally short time interval the graviton reduced the inertial mass obtained via the Higgs field a consequence of this disturbance could be a displacement of the mass in the direction of the gravitational source.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 18:21:38 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #21 on: 24/04/2016 20:20:17 »
What if we set h equal to zero so that only quark kinetic energy mattered and the quarks themselves were massless. This then simplifies the definition of relativistic energy at the expense of losing the Higgs connection. This wouldn't affect the electron. With this version of the hypothesis only electron deflection can occur.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #22 on: 24/04/2016 20:49:37 »
This hypothesis has several major problems. Firstly how could a change in the small percentage of quark mass have a dramatic effect on kinetic or binding energy? If quarks were massless then any change to electron mass even on short timescales would be bad. How could the gravitational field lower the VEV of the Higgs field?
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #23 on: 24/04/2016 21:09:32 »
Relativistic energy increase should be of the following form.

67e6b58a0b39acfb48c9e21c2d387f03.gif
« Last Edit: 24/04/2016 21:13:06 by jeffreyH »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3916
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #24 on: 24/04/2016 21:47:35 »
We have two extrema for the Higgs potential. The symmetry broken non zero potential and the unstable symmetry of the zero potential. The zero potential would have to be directly related to the infinite gamma value while the non-zero potential would relate to zero velocity and the zero potential. For this to work the magnitude of quark kinetic energy would also have to relate to the gamma function. A decrease in quark mass then results in an increase in both quark kinetic energy and binding energy.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: A new hypothesis
« Reply #24 on: 24/04/2016 21:47:35 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length